[ 11 ]

Abs t r a ctIn pursuit of ‘automobility’ we haveunwittingly reduced the independentmobility of many people in the community,including the elderly, the disabled, womenand children. Alternative understandings of‘automobility’. The current dominant misuseof the term has facilitated the acceptance ofthe view that cars provide freedom. Themythical nature of this viewpoint isexplored.

It is increasingly being recognised that inmaking our private choices we often imposeunforeseen costs on others. This papershows that in pursuit of a specific kind ofautomobility, we have unwittingly reducedthe independent mobility of many people inthe community, including the elderly, thedisabled, women and children. In doing so,we have reduced their access toopportunities such as employment,education, recreation and social interaction.In the particular case of children, we haveinhibited their development ofindependence, with far-reaching and long-term consequences.

Yet it is not only the transportdisadvantaged whose freedom is curtailed bythe motor car. Motorists themselves havealso been misled by the myth of cars asfreedom machines: the myth that car basedmobility directly complements autonomy orself-directedness. Consequently, motoristsbecome more dependent on others (includingcar manufacturers and repairers) rather thangaining autonomy.

In this paper, the following questions areaddressed:• is automobility ‘bad language’?• who has access to car based mobility?• are children and women marginalised by

an increased reliance on car basedmobility?

• is it a myth that cars provide freedom?• what are the dangers of a high technology

vision for automobility?

Is ‘automobility ’ bad language?In the study of transport (or any other socialissue) we of ten overlook the subtle effects oflanguage on the acceptance of dominantideologies. Modern English speakingsocieties have uncritically accepted the useof the word ‘automobile’ to mean the privatecar, and hence ‘automobility’ to mean privatecar use. However, an examination of themeanings behind this term suggests that suchusage is based on false assumptions.

A Wish called Wander:Reclaiming Automobility from the Motor Car

Intr oduct i onTransport economics textbooks always usedto argue that the demand for travel is aderived demand: that is, we do not seektravel for itself but for what it enables us todo. If that is so, then why do we devote evergreater amounts of time to it rather thantrying to minimise the travel we undertake?Although those economics texts do recognisetourist and certain types of leisure travel asexceptions, most urban travel is forutilitarian purposes. According to thetheory, we should aim to minimise, ratherthan increase, our consumption of travel.And yet, when faced with an increase in thespeed of travel (for example, by theconstruction of a new rapid transit system),we tend to reduce the gains in terms oflonger journeys, thus maintaining the sametravel times.

Collectively, transport planners then treatthis additional travel as a benefit, on thebasis that it reflects an increase in the rangeof choice available to each of us. One mightwell question the utility of additional choiceswhen most of us are already suffering frominformation and option overload (Keyes,1991). Might it also not be possible that theadditional choices made available to usthrough time savings are less of a benefitthan they seem at first sight? Have wereached the stage where we simply spendmore time choosing and suffer a real dis-benefit through continually wonderingwhether we have made the right choice?

Ian Ker & Paul Tranter: A Wishcalled Wander: ReclaimingAutomobility from the Motor CarWorld Transport Policy & Practice3/2 [1997] 10 - 16

Ian KerW. A. Department of Transport, Perth, Australia.Paul TranterUniversity College, Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia

[ 12 ]

Dictionaries gave the following definitions:• auto- (in combination). Self, own, of or by

oneself (Greek autos).• mobile. Shifting position readily, not fixed.

It needs only a little reflection to realisethe absurdity of equating shifting positionreadily by oneself with the private motor car,in many of the major cities of the world. Notall cities are as bad as Bangkok, where trafficmoves at not much more than walking pace,but all cities have times and places where thecar is not a very mobile piece of equipment.Jokes about freeways (roads with restrictedaccess) being very expensive linear car parksare too often not far from the truth.

But even when it is mobile, the motor cardoes not provide automobility to people.Simply to keep oneself mobile in a carrequires large vehicle manufacture, serviceand repair industries, the road buildingindustry, an international oil industry and, ofcourse, an external source of energy.

Therefore a paradox is in operation. Themotor car appears to provide its owners withthe independence to travel when and wherethey choose. Yet there is a fundamentaldependency on the goods and servicesprovided by a multitude of others. Theapparent ‘independence’ provided by the caris quite illusory.

The only true automobility is achieved bywalking, but cycling comes pretty close sincemost people can effect the necessarymaintenance and repairs to keep a bicycle inrunning order and the rider provides his orher own energy to achieve the mobility.

The consequences of this are not trivial.We find ourselves in the situation wheresuggestions that we must seek alternatives tothe private car in our cities are seen to beadvocating a reduction in the ability ofindividuals to be independently mobile.Such suggestions conflict with modernconcepts of individuality and are stronglyopposed. Yet much of this opposition maybe based on a misunderstanding of‘automobility’ and of the supposed‘freedoms’ provided by the motor car.

Automobility for whom?Automobility, in its current (mis)usage as carbased transport, applies only to a minority ofthe population at any one time. Even inwestern societies, almost half the populationdoes not have independent access to a car.

Using data from Western Australia, thetransport disadvantaged aredisproportionately the young (100% of thoseyounger than 17), the aged (43% of thoseover 60 do not have a driver’s licence) andwomen (25% of women over 17, and 60% ofthose aged 60 and over, do not have a licenceto drive).

Australian cities are among the most car-dependent cities in the world. Yet despitethe dominance of the car in Australian cities,45% of people do not have a driver’s licence,either because they are too young to drive(26%) or because of disability, the cost ofowning a car or historical circumstances(particularly amongst the elderly). There arealso a significant number who have a licenceto drive, but do not have access to a car.

So far, our most common approach to themobility disadvantages of such groups aschildren, women, the elderly or the disabledhas been to attempt to provide more carbased mobility for them, usually aspassengers. While this may seem anappropriate choice in some circumstances, indoing so, we have, often unknowingly,contributed to the lack of true automobility(i.e. independent mobility) for the rest of thepopulation. Ironically, one of the mosthazardous tasks for any pedestrian(especially children, the elderly or those withdisabilities) is trying to negotiate the trafficjams around schools at the end of a schoolday; traffic jams caused by parents trying tocompensate for their children’s lack ofgenuine automobility.

Automobility for thosetoo young to dr iveChildren represent an obvious group that hasnot been a major beneficiary of developmentsin mobility via the car. Although they cantravel as car passengers, children aged from 7to 12 in many western countries now havemuch less freedom than in previousgenerations to travel around their ownneighbourhood or city without an adult(Hillman et al., 1990; Tranter and Whitelegg,1994; Tranter, 1994).

The reduction of children’s trueautomobility can be related to the growth inthe reliance on the motor car, either directlythrough its ef fect on traffic danger, orindirectly through its effect on the location ofactivities, and the reduction in local,neighbourhood-based communities.

Ian Ker & Paul Tranter: A Wishcalled Wander: ReclaimingAutomobility from the Motor CarWorld Transport Policy & Practice3/2 [1997] 10 - 16

[ 13 ]

It could be argued that the loss of thisindependent mobility has been compensatedfor by extra car trips as passengers. As carpassengers, children can travel to more (andmore distant) locations than they couldotherwise. However there are considerablecosts involved in depriving children of theirfreedom, not only for the childrenthemselves, but also for their parents, thewider environment, and for the wholecommunity (Moore, 1986; Tranter, 1994,1995; van Vliet, 1983, Kegerreis, 1993). Theindependent mobility of children issomething which may not be compensatedfor by increased mobility of children in cars

.The most significant costs of the lost

freedom relate to the children themselves.Children’s own personal, intellectual andpsychological development may be impairedwhen their independent mobility is restricted(van Vliet, 1983; Kegerreis, 1993; Moore,1986, 236, 239). In order for children to beable to get to know their own neighbourhoodand community, they need to have activeexploration. This is not provided whenchildren are passengers in cars: childrenmay see more, but they learn less. Withouttrue automobility, children are unlikely toexperience a strong sense of localcommunity, nor are they likely to feel asthough they are an important part of thatcommunity.

The importance of independent mobilityfor children is expressed very powerfully byEngwicht (1992, 39):

“… freedom to explore the localneighbourhood … gives [children] anopportunity to develop a relationship withthe placeness of their physicalenvironment. Robbing children of a senseof place robs them of the very essence oflife”.

Another consideration is that if childrenare constantly driven to school and to otherplaces, they lose one regular way ofmaintaining their physical fitness. The effectof this lack of fitness on self esteem andobesity has been noted by an Australianpaediatrician, Dr Simon Clarke:

“… their parents bring them to see mebecause they are overweight and have selfesteem problems. Of course they areoverweight. They are all ferried about bycar to organised sport and organisedmusic” (Donaghy, 1994, 15).

While it is important that children be ableto get to local play areas by themselves,walking or cycling journeys to school and toother destinations also provide genuine playactivities in themselves (de Monchaux, 1981,97 -99). Research in the United Kingdom(Keynes, 1995, 2) found that the majority ofprimary school children would rather walkor cycle to school than be taken by car.

Not only is the automobility of childrendecreased by excessive reliance on the motorcar, but the automobility of their parents isalso decreased when parents are forced tospend more time acting as conscriptchauffeurs, and hence have less timeavailable for walking or cycling. Children incar dominated environments are much morelikely to be driven to school, to sport, toentertainment, and even to their own friendshomes. Those who are most likely to be thechauffeurs are the mothers of these children.

Women and automobility

There are some important genderimplications of the increased dominance ofthe motor car. Although some women mayappear to have been advantaged throughincreasing car ownership, in general, womenhave benefited much less than men. Womengenerally have less access to private motorvehicles (Pickup, 1988). However, manywomen feel forced into purchasing a motorvehicle because of fears for their personalsafety as pedestrians, as cyclists or on publictransport (Hamilton and Gregory, 1989;Wekerle, 1984). Thus women may feeldeprived of the freedom not to own a car.

Despite recent changes in the rates ofwomen in the workforce, research inAustralia, Britain and the USA demonstratesthat “outside the home, women are stillprimarily responsible for domestic relatedtravel purposes; for example, shopping andschool escort journeys” (Pickup, 1988, 104).As Tivers (1988, 93) argues, “this is clearlythe result of gender role differentiation ofactivities”. Women’s traditional child carerole now includes the responsibility to keepchildren safe when moving from one privatespace to another, safe from traffic dangers forexample. Thus women not only have lessaccess to cars, but they are more likely tohave to use them for purposes that arenothing to do with autonomy or self-directedness, but more to do with perceivedconstraints or obligations.

Ian Ker & Paul Tranter: A Wishcalled Wander: ReclaimingAutomobility from the Motor CarWorld Transport Policy & Practice3/2 [1997] 10 - 16

[ 14 ]

Automobility for motorist s? Mobility ,f reedom and unfreedomThe emphasis on private motorised mobilitysystematically discriminates againstsubstantial sections of the community interms of access to the facilities, services andopportunities most of us take for granted.Yet even those who still have car basedtransport are being deceived by the apparentadvantages of the motor car.

Residents of modern cities havecollectively constructed a myth concerningthe freedom provided by the car. As arguedabove, the mobility provided by the car iscontingent on the support provided by aplethora of goods and service providers. Themyth that the car provides us with freedom isalso based on the false premise that mobilityfacilitates freedom. This idea is related tothe mechanistic model of the world whichstill pervades Western society (Capra, 1982).In this world view, objects (including peopleand machines) are not seen as productiveunless they are doing things, or moving.Unfortunately, so much emphasis is placedon moving that we have forgotten whatmovement can destroy. As Engwicht (1992,18) explains “for many people, movementcan be an expression of tyranny, a loss offreedom”. For example, people may beforced to drive children to organised sportsimply because they feel it is too dangerousto let them play locally. Engwicht suggeststhat “true freedom lies in having access tothe interaction (exchange) that we need forpersonal and community well-being”.

Motorists themselves often do not havethe freedom NOT to own a car. As Catton(1993) argues, “freedom involves the abilityto act in ways that are consonant with one’svalues”. Growing numbers of people nowvalue:• a safe and livable urban environment,

protected from dangers such as traffic,pollution and other dangers such as therisk of assault;

• strong neighbourhood based communities,which allow people to feel as though theyare an important part of a meaningfulcommunity;

• equity; and• physical, psychological and spiritual well-

being.

When people use their cars, collectively theyare behaving in ways which are not

consistent with this set of values. If peoplefeel forced into car ownership, then thismeans that they have relinquished thefreedom to behave according to their values.

But even if we accept the premise thatspeed of movement can be equated withfreedom, the motor car has let us down.During peak hour traffic, average speeds inAustralian cities are often less than the speedof a bicycle. Also, when the time devoted toearning the money for the purchase,maintenance, insurance and so on of cars istaken into account (as well as the externalcosts of cars), the social speed of driving isless than that of a cyclist. “In the finalanalysis, the car wastes more time than itsaves and creates more distance than itovercomes” (Gorz, 1973).

Despite the current emphasis on speedand convenience, the value of wanderingaround is still recognised in our society,sometimes in seemingly unlikely contexts.For example, even within the U.S. Air Forceit is realised that the best leaders adopt the“LBWA” strategy: “Lead by Wandering(Walking) Around” (Lester, 1995). Thisallows leaders to stay in touch with peopleand with their working environment.

In the same way, urban residents needtime to wander around their neighbourhoodto give themselves a sense of place and asense of community. When people walk (orcycle) this is not merely transport as “ameans of getting to a place, it can be anexperience of place in itself” (Engwicht,1992, 39; see also Ohlenschlager, 1990, 28).

Dangers o f a high-tech vision forautomobi l i ty

As motorists travelling at speed, our vision isrestricted to a narrow band, approximatelythe width of the road. Similarly, transportplanners can easily be narrowly focussed ontechnological solutions to the problems ofthe motor car. A current example of this isthe technological view of automobility as“cars that drive themselves”. This newdevelopment in transport policy may make iteven harder to reclaim automobility from thecar. Zygmont (1993) suggests that in “traffic-choked regions like the LA basin, automaticdriving will first appear around 2010”. Thiswould be facilitated by Intelligent VehicleHighway Systems, which may eventuallyfacilitate cars driving in “platoons” at speed

Ian Ker & Paul Tranter: A Wishcalled Wander: ReclaimingAutomobility from the Motor CarWorld Transport Policy & Practice3/2 [1997] 10 - 16

[ 15 ]

on freeways, steering themselves byfollowing a guidance system transmittedfrom sensors in the cars. Such a system isclaimed to increase f reeway capacity by up to300%. This approach supposedly solves theproblems of cars by making cars better!

One of the many problems which such atechnological approach is that even if itworks on the f reeways, it will simply meanthat there will be more cars coming off thefreeways into urban areas at either end,where the cars will disrupt communities, killpeople and make streets even moreunlivable. It will also further encourage thetrend towards the dispersal of land uses,because when people save time on transportthey use it to buy more distance.Consequently, life will be even harder forpedestrians and cyclists.

By adopting a more logical definition ofautomobility, we can envision differentdirections for our cities and their transport.In a city in which people are genuinelyautomobile:• walking and cycling are the primary

modes of transport; motorised transport(public and private) is used only wherenon-motorised transport is unsuitable.

• streets are places for people, rather thansimply movement corridors for motor cars(Tranter and Doyle, 1996). Adults as wellas children use the streets as places tosocialise, places to ‘wander’.

• most of the present road space and carparking space is used primarily for non-motoring uses including recreation, workactivities and food production.

• significant car-free areas are provided(Reutter and Reutter, 1996)

• public transport operates in ways whichpromote ease of independent use by allpeople, without itself creating barriers forthose who wish to wander.

Such a city is one where people of all ages,abilities and incomes are freer to ‘wander’,to explore, to interact, to play and to

socialise. Such a city is ultimately moreequitable, because the ability to accessopportunities becomes less dependent uponbeing able to command the substantialresources necessary for private motorisedtravel.

Concl u s i on

People may well have an innate ‘wish towander’. When we rush from one activity toanother, when we treat ourselves asmachines, trying to be as productive aspossible, we are depriving ourselves ofimportant experiences. We lose our sense ofplace and history. We lose the opportunityfor the sense of belonging that comes fromkeeping in touch with our communities.

Activists for more livable cities areconstantly searching for new ways to reducethe dominance of the motor car. Alreadythere are numerous in-action modelsthroughout the world showing how we mightbe able to move towards this goal (trafficcalming, reclaiming streets for people,charging the full costs of cars, etc.) (Hass-Klau, 1990; Hass-Klau, 1992; Hawley, 1993;and CART, 1989). The difficulty arises inbeing able to engender widespreadenthusiasm for the necessary changes. Anattitudinal change in society is needed;dominant social values need to bechallenged.

This paper has identified one importantway to help produce such an attitudinalchange: raising an awareness of the misuseof language. The widespread misuse of“automobility” is not just bad language, itsconstant use helps to repress the challenge ofthe myth of cars as freedom machines. Ifenough people can understand the basis ofthis myth, if we can understand the linkbetween cars and “unfreedom”, if we can seethe value in “wandering”, then perhaps wereally can reclaim automobility from themotor car.

Ian Ker & Paul Tranter: A Wishcalled Wander: ReclaimingAutomobility from the Motor CarWorld Transport Policy & Practice3/2 [1997] 10 - 16

[ 16 ]

CAPRA, F. (1983) The Turning Point: Science,Society and the Rising Culture, Fontana,London.

CART (1989), Traffic Calming: A Solution to RouteTwenty and a Vision for Brisbane. 50 Exeter StAshgrove, Queensland: CART (CitizensAdvocating Responsible Transport).

CATTON , P. (1993), “Freedom machines myth”Unpublished discussion paper. Department ofPhilosophy and Religious Studies. Universityof Canterbury, Christchurch.

DE MONCHAUX , S. (1981), Planning with children inmind: a notebook for local planners and pol icymakers on chi ldren in the city environment.NSW Department of Environment andPlanning, Sydney.

DONAGHY , B. (1994 ), “Busy children, exhaustedparents”, Sydney Morning Herald , Tuesday,July 5 , p 15.

ENGWI CHT, D (1992), Towards an Eco-City: Calmingthe Traff ic , Envirobook, Sydney.

GORZ , A. (1973), “The Social Ideology of the MotorCar.” Le Sauvage, Sept-Oct. Reproduced onInternet at: http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/campaigns/SocId1.html

HAMILTON , K. and GREGORY , A. (1989), “Women,transport and health”. Autodestruction, Specia lIssue of Radical Community Medicine. 38 , 10-13 .

HAS S-KLAU, C. (1990), The pedestrian and citytraffic . London: Belhaven Press.

HASS-KLAU, C. (1992), Civilised Streets: A Guideto Traffic Calming. Brighton: Environmentaland Transport Planning.

HAW LEY, L. (1993), Towards traffic calming : apractitioners’ manual of implemented localarea traff ic management and blackspot devices.Canberra: Federal Office of Road Safety.

HILLMAN , M. ADAMS, J. & WHITELEGG, J. (1990), OneFalse Move A Study of Children’s IndependentMobility. Policy Studies Institute, London.

KEGERREIS , S. (1993), “Independent mobility andchildren’s mental and emotional development.”In Children, Transport and the Quality of Life(edited by M. Hillman), Policy Studies Institute,London.

KEYES , R. (1991), Timelock: How Life Got So Hecticand What You Can Do About It, Harper Collins,New York.

KEYNES , P. (1995), School Travel: Health and the

R e fe r e n ce s

Environment. Cleary Highes Associates, 22 TheCopse, Hucknall, Nottingham.

LESTER , R. (1995 ), “Leadership, management andcommand.” Seminar at Australian DefenceForce Academy. 30 November.

MOORE, R. C. (1986), Childhood’s Domain: Playand Place in Child Development. Croom Helm,London

OHLENS CHLAGER , S. (1990), “Women also travel.”In Current Issues in Planning (edited by S.Trench and T. Oc), Gower, Aldershot.

PICKUP, L. (1988), “Hard to get around: a study ofwomen’s travel mobility.” In J. Little, L. Peakeand P. Richardson, (Eds) Women in Cities:Gender and the Urban Environment. (NewYork University Press).

REUTTER , U. & REUTTER , O. (1996), “Car-freehouseholds: who lives without an automobiletoday?” World Transport Policy and Practice.2, (4), 32-37.

TIVERS , J. (1988), “Women with young children:constraints on activities in the urbanenvironment.” In J. Little, L. Peake and P.Richardson, (Eds) Women in Cities: Genderand the Urban Environment. (New YorkUniversity Press)

TRANTER , P. (1994), “A child friendly focus fortransport reform: children’s travel freedomsand urban form.” Nineteenth AustralasianTransport Research Forum, Lorne, 517 -538 .

TRANTER , P. (1995), “Behind closed doors:women, girls and mobility.” In On the Move:Debating the is sues that affect women andpublic transport. Conference Proceedings.(Edited by TransAdelaide) TransAdelaide,Adelaide

TRANTER , P. & DOYLE , J. (1996), “Reclaiming theresidential street as play space.” InternationalPlay Journal, 4, 81 -97.

TRANTER , P. & WHITELEGG, J. (1994), “Children’stravel behaviours in Canberra: car dependentlifestyles in a low density city”. Journal ofTransport Geography , 2 (4 ), 265-273.

VAN VLIET, W. (1983), “Children’s travelbehaviour.” Ekistics , 298, 61 - 65.

WEKERLE, G. (1984), “A woman’s place is in thecity”, Antipode, 16 , (3), 11-19.

ZYGMONT , J. (1993), “Automobility: cars that drivethemselves.” Omni. 15, 38.